My posts on Restorationism continue to stir some interest, with Richard Collins weighing in with his assessment of what can be known of the very early church with a number of interesting comments. You can read three comments starting here and two more starting here.

I wanted to address his comments in a post, but I am now beginning to think that it will require a series of posts, as a huge number of difficult issues have been raised. But first I want to think about the factors that cause people like Richard to move beyond Restorationism, as indeed many of the early Restorationist leaders have done themselves (read Andrew Walker’s book for the details).

Richard was once part of a New Frontiers church, but now finds himself in the more historical denominations, apparently as a result of extensive reflection and reading on what the early church was like. He asks whether the zeal of those leaders who came out of established denominations to form house churches was somewhat misguided. It would appear that Sven is making a similar journey to Richard, as he retreats out of the narrow straits of New Frontiers to swim in the broader sea of Christianity.

While Restorationist churches often receive new members from the traditional denominations, delighted to have found something more “New Testament” than their previous church, what are we to make of those headed in the other direction, and for exactly the same reason?

Is it simply that “the grass is greener on the other side”, where the weaknesses of your home church are magnified in your mind, while the faults of others are not seen? This is a common enough reason for switching churches. Is it a “declaration of independence” – a sort of belated teenage rebellion, where those who have spent their life in one denomination start to become disillusioned with its exclusive claims to be the “real deal”? Could it be intellectual pride, as those who know far less dismiss the dissenter’s arguments without ever understanding them? Leaving to find a church that will recognise you for the true genius that you are might seem a promising option.

But these factors, though they may explain some “sheep transfers”, may still be too unkind to people like Richard and Sven. They are thinking people, who have eventually concluded that the Restorationist model is indefensible. They are always questioning their assumptions, exploring new avenues of thought, trying out different pronunciations of Shibboleth. This is found quite threatening by many evangelicals, and by questioning the assumptions, these people can find themselves marked out as problem people who are plotting a coup. They realise they have no future in ministry where they are, and make a (hopefully) courteous but prompt exit.

I found it interesting that Terry Virgo invited Philip Greenslade and Ian Stackhouse to speak at the New Frontiers leadership conference this year. While remaining committed charismatic evangelicals, these men are both deep thinkers who are not afraid to critique the movement they are part of. John Hosier also seems to be exploring how exactly New Frontiers contributes to the bigger picture of the church. So perhaps there is hope that future Richards and Svens will be able to stay in New Frontiers to help make sure that our zeal is properly tempered by knowledge.

None of this should be misinterpreted as me saying that we should celebrate those who publicly voice their criticisms of the essential truths of the gospel. It must be guarded (2 Tim 1:14). Neither am I suggesting that in a gloriously post-modern way we allow anyone to get into the pulpit and advocate whatever model of church life seems like a good idea to them. But even the fairly dogmatic John Piper has recently expressed the importance of receiving those who differ on the non-essentials. We need to revisit the lessons of Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8, and learn to be more accepting of one another despite our differences.